The question of the night at President Obama's first televised press conference focused not on economics but foreign policy. Helen Thomas asked the president if he knew of any countries in the Middle East that have nuclear weapons. The President said that he didn't want to "speculate" about such an issue, but that preventing a regional nuclear arms race, as well as reducing nuclear arsenals internationally, was an important goal.
There is, of course, only one Middle Eastern nation which has a nuclear arsenal: Israel. Thomas' question was designed to test whether Obama would admit that well-known secret. Many past American presidents have not.
The president refused to answer. Which begs a follow-up question: why is it considered impermissible for American politicians to even admit that Israel is a nuclear power? For what reason is such an admission considered to be a means of undermining US-Israeli relations, or weakening Israeli security? Bold but highly debatable (and contentious) statements concerning prominent Middle Eastern actors fall from the lips of American leaders constantly. For example, tonight President Obama reiterated the charge that Hamas and Hezbollah are both terrorist organizations, a broad-brush description, considering that Hamas's political wing has won at least one democratic election (in Gaza), and both groups have humanitarian as well as paramilitary wings.
Responsible public policy cannot be formed without an honest and public assessment of on-the-ground realities, something Americans learned the hard way under the Bush administration. Recognizing the immense challenge presented by the Israeli-Palestinian issue, those who seek a resolution of the conflict must demand that President Obama discuss the reality of that situation in a more honest way. This includes criticizing both sides for abuses, not just the Palestinian side (Obama still has yet to critique the Israeli assault on Gaza). It also means being willing to bring up issues that past administrations have not. Such equality is especially necessary if public opinion of the United States in the Arab world is to be improved.
Tonight, President Obama demonstrated avoidance, not leadership, regarding this pivotal issue. He is far to worldly not to have done so intentionally, which, while frustrating, also provides concerned citizens with a concrete goal: the task of driving him to greater candor -- and with it, better policy -- in the future.
A few quick notes regarding Israeli nuclear capacity:
By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel's nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided.by John V. Santore for The Huffington Post
Today, Israel is the world's sixth most powerful nuclear state, with a stockpile of more than 100 nuclear weapons and with the components and ability to build atomic, neutron and hydrogen bombs. Israel's nuclear program began and still operates under tight secrecy, but in the 1980s a series of revelations showed the crucial role played by foreign suppliers.
Ex-US President Jimmy Carter has said Israel has at least 150 atomic weapons in its arsenal. The Israelis have never confirmed they have nuclear weapons, but this has been widely assumed since a scientist leaked details in the 1980s.
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI jumped from my seat when Ms. Thomas asked the question and I knew President Obama did not want to answer it. He may have given us a clue to how he plans to approach Israel about having nuclear weapons. He talked about U.S. and Russian relations and moving forward on diminishing both countries’ stockpiles. That will help give the credibility he needs to approach other nations to strengthen the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It was avoidance, but it may have been the best answer he could give as he makes plans to change the global nuclear weapons landscape. He said several times during his campaign that the world should rid itself of nuclear weapons. I hope Ms. Thomas question will light a small fire under his pants to get going on it.
ReplyDeleteI am more bothered by the media’s choice to ignore the question and not follow up on an answer via pundits discussions. If he does not answer, the media holds more blame than anyone. All President’s lie and hold secrets. It is up to us and the media to shine the light of truth on the lies and secrets.
Michael T. McPhearson
Veterans For Peace
Executive Director